(8th meeting) Reconvened concluding session of the Ad Hoc Committee to Elaborate a Comprehensive International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes
1 Aug 2024 15:00h - 18:00h
Knowledge Graph of Debate
Session report
Full session report
Committee session addresses cybercrime convention text, gender mainstreaming, and title negotiations
During the committee session, the Chair apologized for the delayed start, attributing it to a prolonged Bureau meeting aimed at resolving issues before presenting them to the committee. The Chair outlined the afternoon’s agenda, which included hearing from the Vice Chair from Australia regarding informal consultations on the text, reviewing the preamble, considering the title, and hearing from multi-stakeholders.
The Vice Chair from Australia reported on the informal consultations, noting progress on some issues while acknowledging that some provisions remained unresolved. She detailed discussions on specific articles, including Article 36, which was close to consensus, and Article 40, which involved translation challenges. The Vice Chair also mentioned the proposal to delete the term “evidentiary items” in favor of “evidence” to resolve language difficulties. After input from various countries, the committee agreed to retain “evidence.”
Further amendments to Articles 41 and 45 were discussed, with the committee agreeing to minor changes for clarity and to delete redundant phrases. A new paragraph proposed for Article 52, taken verbatim from UNCAC Article 57.4, was considered and supported by the small group. However, Paraguay suggested a slight modification to the text, leading to a discussion on the exact language to be used.
The Chair then moved to review the preamble, where paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 7 had been agreed upon, while paragraphs 3, 4, and 6 were set aside. The discussion focused on paragraph 10, which addressed gender mainstreaming. Nigeria proposed replacing “affirming” with “noting” to reach a compromise. Despite some support for this change, many delegations expressed a preference for the original language, emphasizing the importance of gender considerations. The Chair suggested accepting Nigeria’s proposal as a compromise, but the paragraph was left open for further consideration.
Regarding the title of the convention, the Chair proposed a title that attempted to synthesize positions favoring “UN Convention Against Cybercrime” with those advocating for a broader scope, including crimes committed using ICT systems. The discussion did not reach a consensus, and the title remained open for further negotiation.
The United States demonstrated flexibility by withdrawing its proposed minor edits to Articles 7.2 and 8.2, agreeing to return to the original language. The UAE raised concerns about a paragraph in Article 7, suggesting the deletion of a clause linking criminalization to security measures. The Chair requested a specific proposal from the UAE, which was to delete the clause entirely, but the paragraph was left open pending the UAE’s further consideration.
Stakeholders, including Microsoft and the Cybersecurity Tech Accord, voiced concerns about the general direction of the negotiations. They supported a title that specifically addressed cybercrime and expressed support for the Chair’s draft text on human rights and gender equality in the preamble.
The Chair concluded the session by inviting stakeholders to reconvene the next day at 10 a.m. to continue the review of the draft resolution.
Session transcript
Chair:
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends, good afternoon. I’d like to apologize for this delay. It’s due to a meeting at the Bureau, which went on a bit too long. But we in the Bureau, we’re all trying to make sure that everything is taking place in the best way possible, and we are trying to settle all of the issues before informing you. And so that way the Committee can take its decision in the best conditions possible. And that’s why we’re a bit late. So, for this afternoon, I’m going to begin – well, first of all, I’ll introduce the program. I’m going to give the floor, first of all, to our dear colleague from Australia, the Vice-Chair and member of the Bureau, who held informal consultations on certain parts of the text, and she’s going to give us the outcome of those consultations. I hope that the outcome is good and it will give us good vibes, as they say in English. We need them. And then we’re going to take up our review of the preamble. Once we finish the preamble, we’re going to look at the title, and after the title, I will give the floor to the multi-stakeholders, as I promised at the beginning of the week, for them to be able to convey to us their point of view, their opinions, their comments. I prefer – if you agree, I would prefer to let the – leave the review of the resolution for tomorrow morning. We’re all a bit tired and we’ll have more time this afternoon and this evening, rather, to review our draft resolution, and we can carry out consultations then. I hope it’s clear for you and that you’ll be able to accept that. So without further delay, I will give the floor to our dear colleague from Australia. You have the floor.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much, Chair, and hello, colleagues. It’s lovely to be in front of you once again. We had a good discussion yesterday morning in the room where we were able to agree at referendum so many of the articles and paragraphs in Chapter 5 and 6, so I really do thank you all so much for that. But we did identify a list of paragraphs that were still under discussion where several countries had proposals for amendments. I invited all of those countries to a small group meeting yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately, not everyone was able to attend, I believe, so some provisions remain outstanding. However, we did make some progress on other issues. I wanted to run you through the discussions that we had in that small group, because obviously what happens in a small group is not agreed at referendum or consensus, and it’s very important to bring those discussions back to this room for you all to have a look at what we’ve been discussing. I’m going to ask, we have had some updates in the last 10 minutes on Article 36, so we’re going to skip that one because we are still working on it, but I think we are very close to consensus. There is another idea that has just recently been put forward since closing that small group and so I am continuing to consult on it. Article 36, but I think we are very close there. So if we can move on instead to Article 40. And we worked in the group here. So the issue with Article 43H arose in relation to translation. And in some languages, it is quite difficult to draw a difference between the words evidence and evidentiary items. In the small group, we discussed this and there was no objection to deleting one of these suggestions. In the small group yesterday, it was proposed to delete the word evidence rather than evidentiary items. However, there is also a proposal to do the other, so to delete evidentiary items and keep the word evidence. There has been no opposition to either of those proposals. So I put it to this room, which one you would prefer. At the moment, it seems that there is a preference to in fact do the other thing to what is on screen. And I apologize because this is the document I did at 11 p.m. last night, so it hasn’t been updated with the discussions from this morning. So I might open the floor to the room if there is any preference or any objection to deleting one of these terms and any preference as to which term is retained and which term is deleted. Thank you.
Chair:
You’ve heard the Vice Chair. She asked the question, how do you respond to it? UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
Tanzania:
Thank you. So as a legal practitioner, I would propose to go with the word evidence, because evidence in, I think, all jurisdictions, it can be defined to include all types of evidence, whether documentary or physical. So the word evidence could fit more than evidentiary items.
Vice Chair:
Thank you so much, Tanzania. Russian Federation?
Russian Federation:
Thank you. We also would prefer retaining the broader sense of the word evidence, because evidentiary items refers to substantive proof that does not always include electronic evidence.
Vice Chair:
Thank you so much, Russia. Ecuador, you have the floor.
Ecuador:
Thank you. We would prefer to leave the term evidence, because understanding that the lifecycle of the digital evidence begins with the trace and then it becomes a probatory element during the judicial process and the judicialization of the process, we understand that the term evidence would include this entire lifecycle, and that’s why we prefer to keep this term.
Vice Chair:
Thank you so much, Ecuador. It seems that the room would prefer evidence, so I would suggest that we strike evidentiary items and instead include the word evidence. I would put that to the room as a way forward on paragraph H. Do we have agreement? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you. In Article 41 we had two proposals. The first is not reflected on the screen. We had a proposal yesterday to make some changes to 41.3c. The small group discussed these changes and determined that rather than deleting any of the listings here in Article 41.3, we would instead separate out the two paragraphs. So this is really quite a small change. It is listing out from 41.3c into two paragraphs, c and d. So we have evidence and the provision of legal information listed separately to the location of suspects. I would like to put to the room that we can adopt this change that is not substantive, hopefully. Wonderful. Let’s say that that is adopted at referendum. The other issue, sorry, the other proposal that was discussed around Article 41 yesterday was in relation to Article 41 paragraph 2. We had a proposal from Paraguay to add an additional sentence to this paragraph. It was agreed at referendum. It was not put up at the screen at the time because we did not have the text, so I just wanted to show you the text there so that you can all read the text that was proposed by Paraguay, given that it was not up on the screen yesterday. So, this was agreed, the concept was agreed, ADREF, and now it is in our text. The next proposal that we had was around, if we can go back here, perfect, 45, paragraph Article 45.3c included the words or other illegal act at the end. We had some questions and discussion in the small group around what other illegal acts could be under the Convention. It turns out that it was a hangover from an older provision from a very former life of draft of the Convention a long time ago, so the small group agreed to delete or other illegal act from this paragraph. I would like to put to the room that we can accept the deletion of these four words. I’m not seeing any requests for the floor, so let’s agree that one ADREF referendum. Thank you so much. We also had a proposal yesterday to add an additional paragraph to Article 52. This paragraph is verbatim taken from UNCAC Article 57.4. The paragraph is on the screen there now for you to read. The small group discussion discussed this paragraph and thought that it was a worthy proposal and agreed that we should include it in Article 52 of our Convention. Giving you a moment to read it on the screen. Paraguay, you have the floor.
Paraguay:
Thank you very much, Vice-Chair. This is a proposal that we made yesterday. We were also – we were in the small group that dealt with this. And I wanted to mention that some countries approached me and they said that they would not have any problem with this proposal in the sense that the investigation expenses or prosecution expenses or judicial costs are a public expense, a general public expense, and they can’t charge the victim with it. And so I’d like to make a new proposal in order to define this to simply the administrative expenses. Well, I don’t have it on my computer, but I do have it on my cell phone. Even though this is taken from UNCAC, we do understand the concern of these countries who wanted to speak about this, and so I wanted to make a slight change. I don’t know if that’s possible now, or if I could send it to the Secretary to improve our analysis of it.
Chair:
Read it out now so that we can all hear it. That would be very helpful.
Paraguay:
Okay, thanks. I’m going to do it in English, so – where appropriate, unless state parties decide otherwise, the requested state party may deduct reasonable expenses incurred in the maintenance, preservation, administration, disposition, and or return of confiscated property pursuant of this article.
Vice Chair:
Thank you very much Paraguay. So this would be altering the text from UNCAC and then we would be deleting the references to investigations, prosecutions or judicial proceedings. Ah look, thank you Secretariat. Yes, do we have it up on the screen? So these are the two options. I’m giving everyone a moment to read the text. El Salvador, would you like to comment on this?
El Salvador:
Yes, thank you very much. Well, given the elements that were raised by the delegation of Paraguay, El Salvador would be inclined to support this, well, support the drafting of UNCAC.
Vice Chair:
Thank you so much El Salvador. So that would be the original, not the alt. Yes, I’m getting a thumbs up. Thank you El Salvador. Peru, you have the floor.
Peru:
Yes, we agree. We support the proposal, the modified proposal that Paraguay is making. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
It seems we have still some work to do on the exact language of this proposal given that we have support for both versions rather than one. one or the other. United States, I will give you the floor. But I suggest that perhaps we reconvene to decide in a small group which one is better. Those of you who care can come along to that. But United States, you have the floor first.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. And apologies for disrupting your flow of events here. I just wanted to observe our continued support for the original, including because it is agreed language from another treaty. And we are at what is hopefully a very late stage in our process. And I also note, and we can discuss more in the small group, of course, the many ways in which this paragraph is flexible to the needs of the parties that are involved in the decision around how the proceeds will be returned or disposed of. And so we think the original provides a great deal of flexibility that may already address the concerns of the states that are interested in the alternative. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, United States. India, you have the floor.
India:
So thank you, Chair. So now, since this is a new edition, I request we would request some bit of time to study both of these proposals. So we’ll not be able to immediately offer comments on the first and second. We’ll require some time on this. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you, India. I suggest you come along to the small group, which I’m sure will happen at some point in the next 12 to 18 hours. And yes, it is a new proposal, the second alternative. The first one was proposed yesterday, so hopefully it’s not new to everyone. If we can scroll down then. Finally, the small group discussed proposed changes to Article 42, Paragraph 9. This was a proposal to add a time limit or some sort of time frame on the extensions of. the, whatever it was, is it the provision of data? I think it is. Some sort of extension time limit, and we decided that that would be difficult, and so we decided to leave the paragraph as is, and the proposal was withdrawn. So I think we could retain the original of 42-9. Perhaps we can swap over to that on the screen, and I can put that up for ad referendum adoption. Brazil, you have the floor.
Brazil:
Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair. I’m sorry to take the floor now. We took a bit longer to take the floor. We just wanted to thank Paraguay for the proposal, and the second proposal especially, and we’ll be glad to go into the small group and discuss it. Thank you.
Vice Chair:
Thank you so much, Brazil. I think that there is no objection to including a paragraph there. We just need to talk about the exact wording a little bit more, so thank you so much for that flexibility. I put Article 42, Paragraph 9 to the room to adopt that referendum. I see no request to the floor, so adopted. If we can go back to the other document that has the list on it. Sorry to make you scroll back and forth. The other two proposals that were decided to retain as original were Article 45.1 and Article 46. So I would put to the floor that we can agree to Article 45.1 as it stands in the chair’s draft at referendum. I see no requests for the floor, so decided, Article 46. The small group also discussed Article 46 and we decided to retain the original as drafted in this revision. I would like to put to the floor that we can agree Article 46 at referendum. I see no requests for the floor, it is so decided, thank you so much. I want to note that there were two other proposals made in plenary yesterday. They were in regards to Article 34 Paragraph 6 and Article 40 Paragraph 3 Subparagraph L. Unfortunately the proposer of these two new amendments was not present in our small group, so we were not able to resolve these issues, but I note that they still remain outstanding and we will try our best to resolve those very soon. Thank you all so much.
Chair:
Thank you very much my distinguished colleague, the Vice Chair of the Committee for your efforts. The Committee can confirm and affirm that we are undertaking immense efforts, all possible efforts to arrive at consensus. Thank you very much and thank you very much for your good vibes and good luck for what you still have to do. Thank you. So, I would like to thank all of you and now we will be going back to the examination of the preamble. The situation is as follows. This morning we adopted paragraphs 1 and 2. Paragraphs 3 and 4 have been set aside. Paragraph 5 agreed. 6 still set aside and 7 has been agreed and now we’re at paragraph 8. Are there any objections to adopting this paragraph at referendum? No? Can we adopt it? Can we move forward? No. Russian Federation.
Russian Federation:
Madam Chair, thank you. I would like to clarify that Russia, before the lunch break, said that in light of the fact that your proposal in paragraph 4 was a bit controversial, was challenged by one delegation, therefore Russia reserved its position on paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8. And we’re doing so because in our dialogue after the meeting it seemed that it might have been a mistake in the translation and interpretation. And we include paragraph 9 in that as well. We’ll wait until we get to paragraph 9 and then I’ll give you back the floor to preserve your position on that. For now we are on paragraph 8. And please keep in mind the reservations of Russia to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. So besides Russia, which has issued a reservation, are the others willing to adopt this? Perfect. Paragraph 9. Russian Federation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Yes, as I just mentioned, given that one of the delegations had challenged the proposed paragraph 4, we reserve our position on the term cybercrime in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Thank you. Thank you very much. I’d like to ask you a question. If by some chance, I’m not sure, but if the delegation that had proposed an amendment to paragraph 4 were to withdraw that amendment, would you then be willing to accept all of these paragraphs?
Russian Federation:
Yes, we’d be willing to consider that possibility, although, of course, the question of the title of the convention still remains.
Chair:
No, the title will still be under examination. I’m just talking about these paragraphs for which you issued a reservation. If the delegation that proposed an amendment to paragraph 4 were to withdraw that amendment or did not insist on its proposal, then would you be willing to accept all of these paragraphs in question?
Russian Federation:
Yes, thank you. Absolutely. If these objections are lifted, then we could accept 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the form in which they were proposed by the Chair.
Chair:
Enough. And 9, right, since the Chair. I’m trying to bargain here, says the Chair. Okay. Paragraph 10. Paragraph 10. Are there any objections to its adoption at referendum? I see none. Oh yes, I do see several objections. Iran, Nigeria and Sudan. Iran first.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we had an extensive discussion about this gender perspective. We propose deletion of this paragraph because the crimes covered by this convention are immaterial to the gender perspective issues. Thank you.
Chair:
Excusez-moi, Iran. I’m sorry, Iran. What is your proposal at this stage? I repeat, I’m expecting from all of you that if you do not agree with something, then you ought to present a proposal, an alternative. Iran, you have the floor.
Iran:
Okay, thank you. We propose deletion of this article. This paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Very well. Nigeria, please.
Nigeria:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As Nigeria had indicated earlier, though we preferred this particular provision moved to preventive measures where we thought it could have better placement and relevance in the spirit of seeking consensus. And we’ve had this conversation. We are proposing the replacement of the word affirming with noting, because that will be a middle ground. But as it stands, our delegation is not able to affirm the question of mainstreaming gender perspective because like we’ve repeatedly mentioned, we fail to see the practical implication or use in an investigation. But like we have said, this can be useful in preventive measures, but we are okay to retain this if the word affirming is replaced with noting. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nigeria. Sit down, please. Microphone for sit down, please.
Sudan:
Thank you, Madam Chair. That the term mainstream gender may not align with our law and regulation and many countries, many Islam countries, as I mentioned yesterday, but for the sake of compromise, we do agree with the proposal made by Nigeria in this issue. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup, Namibia. Thank you, Namibia.
Namibia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Namibia can also support Nigeria’s proposal to replace the term affirming with noting in this context. We have the view that the term noting, however it does acknowledge the importance of gender consideration, but it also provides flexibility to member states to implement these principles in alignment with their legislative frameworks. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, European Union.
European Union:
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Thank you, Madame Chair. The issue of mainstreaming the gender perspective has been largely discussed during previous sessions, and we believe that the way it is currently drafted strikes the right balance, and the EU and its member states would therefore plead to continue to keeping the text as it stands. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madame Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. We support the proposal from the Distinguished Delegate of Iran to delete this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe:
Thank you, Madame Chair, for giving Zimbabwe the opportunity to say a few words on this one. Like our colleagues from Nigeria have indicated, I think the word noting would be a preferable word in the sense that it’s talking about paying particular attention to issues of gender mainstreaming, unlike using the word affirming, which is more of a strictly making a particular public statement or strong affirmation on something. So I think we would support Nigeria’s proposal that lets use the word noting, because we are simply advising member states to pay particular attention to issues of gender mainstreaming in the statement. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chair:
Canada.
Canada:
Thank you, Madame Chair. Although Canada’s preference is to keep the wording as it is, as stated by the EU, as the distinguished… English delegate from Nigeria said in the spirit of compromise and getting things done, we could live with his suggested wording of noting in response to the assertion by Iran about it being relevant. All policy considerations are relevant when you’re making legislation, and this does nothing except give you a policymaking lens to consider whether or not there are differential impacts based on gender. So I think it’s completely relevant to this treaty, and therefore I believe it should stay. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much.
Cabo Verde:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We prefer the test where it is, as it is. Thank you.
Sierra Leone:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. In the spirit of reaching consensus, I would like to align with the statement made by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria for the word noting. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Egypt aligns itself with the intervention made by the Distinguished Delegate of Nigeria. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Egypt. Thank you, Egypt. Iceland.
Iceland:
Thank you. We would prefer to keep it as it is, please. And just to quickly, if I may, read out what gender mainstreaming means, how it’s defined. It’s defined as it’s a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of policies. and programs in all political, economic and social spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetrated. And I wonder why we cannot all agree on this is an important thing to consider in the context of cybercrime. So with that, I would just like to underline that we would prefer keeping it as it is. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We’ve been a strong supporter of this issue since the outset and we feel this convention should capture the gendered risks posed by cybercrime. We started the process with quite high ambitions and it’s fair to say we’re somewhat disappointed. This reference in particular has two caveats and it does feel like a significant compromise. So we really don’t support any further weakening of this language or the deletion of this text. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Like other speakers, the U.S. supports the paragraph as you have drafted it for us and like my colleague from the United Kingdom, we recall that this is the result of a great deal of compromise that has been made along the way by the many proponents of incorporating a gender perspective into the future work under this treaty. We have also, like our distinguished colleagues from Canada, listened carefully to the distinguished representative from Nigeria and we will consider their proposal because we understand that they are seeking to promote consensus, but for now we would strongly prefer to retain the existing language. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Thank you, Kenya.
Kenya:
Madam Chair, the delegation of Kenya supports amendment proposed by the United States. that the distinguished delegation from Nigeria on replacement of the term affirming with the word noting. We are cognizant that domestic laws support the requirement for gender mainstreaming. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Yemen.
Yemen:
Shukran. Thank you, Madam Chair. The observation from the first day was to delete this paragraph because the legal text is general and abstract. It applies to everyone and all crimes. If we want to maintain the text, we find that a paragraph should be added at the end in accordance with domestic laws, so long as they do not contradict domestic legislation. And this would solve the problem. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Shukran.
Colombia:
Gracias, Senora Presidenta. Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to paragraph 10, we’d like to recall that the current terms in which it is drafted, this text is the result of broad deliberations where various delegations, including that of Colombia, have been giving ground to withdrawing this expression from many of the articles in this convention. We understand that the general elements that are being raised at the present time are part of an invitation to the interpretation of the provisions of the criminal investigation that is raised by the convention. And in that respect, we believe that it’s important to respect the text as it stands, as it’s drafted. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you, Qatar.
Qatar:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Qatar supports the proposal from the distinguished delegate of Nigeria. Thank you.
Chair:
New Zealand.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also support the amendment proposed by the Nigerian delegation as a compromise, and thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Nepal.
Nepal:
Thank you, Chair. As we have stated earlier, this text is well-balanced, and we are strongly supportive of maintaining the gender perspective. While we would prefer to keep the text as it is, in the spirit of consensus, we can support Nigeria’s proposal on the word noting. However, we will not be supporting its deletion at all. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Norway.
Norway:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Norway supports the statement made by the EU, Canada, and many others, and would like to keep the wording as drafted by you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Sweden.
Sweden:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sweden is one of 27 member states of the European Union, and we align ourselves with the statement of the European Union. In our national capacity, we would like to highlight the following. For Sweden, this is an important aspect of the Convention. Here, I would like to refer to the very clear arguments in this regard put forward by, for example, Canada and Iceland. I will just add the following. Mainstreaming a gender perspective in our efforts to prevent and combat cybercrime is essential in giving effect to this Convention. We hope that we all can agree that we want this Convention to be as efficient as possible. For that to be the case, we must keep in mind how the different aspects of this Convention affect people in different ways, and adjust our efforts accordingly. So we also, like, for example, Capo Verde and Colombia, object to changing affirming into noting as a… suggested by one delegation. We would like to keep the proposed language, and this is despite the fact that we are a bit unsure about the added value and meaning here of the addition in accordance with domestic law. But we are willing to agree to this compromise put forward by you that was put forward after extensive discussions. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Niger.
Niger:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the proposal by Nigeria. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Niger, Uruguay.
Uruguay:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’d like to support the text that you have presented to us. We understand that here there is already a compromise after extensive negotiations, and it includes the provision of domestic legislation. And therefore, for us, there we already have a compromise, and we therefore support the proposal that you introduced to us in the draft. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you.
Georgia:
Thank you, Chair. George also would like to express our strong preference for the existing language. We align ourselves with the reasons submitted by UK and Iceland. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Republic of Moldavia.
Republic of Moldova:
Thank you, Chairperson. It seems to me we are going rounds in our discussions on this para. This delegation has a strong preference for the current wording, but for the sake of compromise, we can accept also the proposal made by Nigeria. And we call to delegations to look for a compromise. The current world is the strong preference for us. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Chile.
Chile:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to say that for my delegation, the exercise in the spirit of consensus that we have seen in the negotiations thus far to come up with this wording and such an important item as such as the gender perspective, for my country, this is a very important issue. And to put it in a preamble is an expression of that spirit of consensus and flexibility. And we believe that the current drafting already has considerations, including flexibility, as Uruguay mentioned, saying that it is in accordance with domestic law. And we’d also like to mention that many of the provisions that are found nowadays within this convention, if we had to take into account particular vulnerabilities when we talk about gender-based violence, from my delegation, this is crucial, and in no way can we accept the elimination of this preambular paragraph. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Chile. Liechtenstein.
Liechtenstein:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We are not sure if the word noting does the trick here in this para. Noting is kind of the acknowledgement of existence, but it then doesn’t do much with this para. So we could not go along with this proposal, and we would support to keep the text as it was drafted by you. And I also want to highlight that we have already a caveat in the text, so I don’t see how this should have an effect on national legislation since we have… in accordance with domestic law. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Costa Rica.
Costa Rica:
Thank you, Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen. Costa Rica firmly supports the text that was proposed. As we have already heard in this room from Colombia, this topic of the gender perspective is something that we believe is cross-cutting throughout the entire instrument and throughout the negotiations. Well, we have been making concessions, we’ve been making compromises. I believe that for my delegation, the minimum that we could accept is affirming. Taking note or noting disregards the commitment of the instrument and the possibility of fighting against gender-based violence in cyberspace. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Tanzania.
Tanzania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation supports the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Nigeria. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Oman.
Oman:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support Yemen’s proposal. As a compromise, we might support Nigeria’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Australia.
Australia:
Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. For the reasons just articulated by Costa Rica and many others before them, our strong preference is to maintain Your text that you have here. Thanks.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Japan.
Japan:
Madam Chair, we can consider the proposal by distinguished delegates of Nigeria, but for the moment we prefer to keep the text as it drafted. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. South Africa.
South Africa:
Thank you, Chair. South Africa, suppose the text is drafted by you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Panama.
Panama:
For Panama, it’s very important that we maintain, in an instrument that is so important, that we maintain the gender perspective, and as a result we support the Chair’s proposal. Gracias.
Chair:
Thank you. Mali.
Mali:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just to say that we support the position expressed by Nigeria. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mali. Russia.
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. The ad hoc committee will recall how Russia had spoken out against gender perspectives, because this concept is outside of the scope of the work of the special ad hoc committee, although we are paying so much attention to it, and it remains terra incognita for the Russian Federation. We recall the position of Iran as well in its position against this phrasing. At the same time, I’d like to point out that in paragraph 10, there is an important mention in accordance with domestic law, it says, which would help countries to perhaps take a different view toward this issue. And essentially it wouldn’t – they would be able to use their own legislation. So here I’d like to support the compromise proposed by Nigeria. And instead of saying affirming at the beginning of this paragraph, just say noting. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Angola. Thank you. Thank you. Angola. Thank you. Angola.
Angola:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the wording of this paragraph, but for the sake of compromise we support also the proposal made by Nigeria. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you. New Zealand. Thank you.
New Zealand:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We applaud Nigeria in terms of their efforts in relation to compromise, but we’ve listened clearly to the room, and especially in relation to the distinguished colleague from Iceland who read out in terms of exactly what a gender perspective is. And if we can’t affirm in relation to that equality in 2024, I don’t know what else we can do. So therefore, it must be affirmed rather than note.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. Honduras.
Honduras:
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is very important for my delegation. We believe that the current drafting already contains a consideration of flexibility, especially since the same paragraph says at the end – what it says at the end. We prefer that we maintain the text as you presented it, Madam Chair, with the term affirming instead of noting. Thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Guatemala. Thank you. Guatemala.
Guatemala:
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation, like other delegations, we support the proposal made by the Chair, and we prefer to maintain the term gender perspective. We believe that this paragraph already has a caveat that could relieve the concerns of other delegations. because it clearly establishes in accordance with domestic law. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Albania? Thank you. Albania.
Albania:
Thank you, Chair. Also, Albania would support the current taxes drafted by you. Thank you. Merci.
Chair:
Thank you. Nigeria.
Nigeria:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just noting the responses in the room, and particularly the mention by New Zealand, he mentioned that if we can do nothing else in this day and time, we can affirm gender equality. If that is the understanding, we will be happy to change affirming the importance of gender equality, going by what New Zealand has said. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just opening up the field for consensus. Thank you, Madam.
Chair:
Thank you, Nigeria. UAE?
United Arab Emirates:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support Nigeria’s proposal in order to reach consensus. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. El Salvador.
El Salvador:
Thank you, Chair. El Salvador is pleased to be able to praise flexibility, and we support the drafting that was presented by you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Libya?
Libya:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support Nigeria’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. We’ve exhausted the list of speakers on this paragraph, paragraph 10. It seems to me that to arrive at consensus, the proposal by Nigeria, that is to replace the word affirming with the word noting, seems to be the most acceptable proposal we have before us. And so I’ll leave the question open, but I’d like to ask you to seriously consider accepting Nigeria’s proposal. That is to say, replacing the word affirming with the word noting, noting the importance of mainstream agenda perspective and all relevant efforts to prevent and combat the offenses covered by this convention in accordance with domestic law. I think that we’ve heard from most of the room and the vast majority seems to be in favor of this proposal. Very well. So we’ll leave paragraph 10 open, but with the possibility of replacing affirming with noting to arrive at consensus, it would be rather silly on our part not to have a convention to combat cybercrime, simply because we cannot accept replacing the word affirming with the word noting. So thank you very much. Now, paragraph 11. Are there any objections to paragraph 11? Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving the floor to me. And for the same reason, we would like to propose deletion of the paragraph also. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Iran. Are we prepared to delete this paragraph, paragraph 11, Cabo Verde?
Cabo Verde:
No, we prefer it as it is.
Chair:
That was clear. Thank you. All right, we’ll leave it open for now. Paragraph 12.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in this paragraph, I don’t want to just propose a minor change. Because in this literature, we use mostly the phrase, unlawful interference. So we can accept this paragraph with deletion of arbitrary. Thank you.
Chair:
Yemen. Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We also support the removal or deletion of arbitrary. We can read the paragraph as follows, acknowledging the right to protection against unlawful interference. Unlawful will be more than comprehensive. So we support deleting arbitrary. Thank you.
Chair:
Can the committee delete the word arbitrary? No. No. United States.
United States:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I note that this is the exact language taken from the… relevant human rights instrument in which this right is defined, and so deleting that word would be contrary to the relevant legal precedent, and we would need to keep the language the way it is. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much. United States, Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that this language is, as in the explanatory note, based on the language in the ICCPR Article 17, and to bridge the gap between the divergent views in this regard, I think that we can work on the language of the ICCPR Article 17. Our proposal in this regard would be as follows, Madam Chair. Acknowledging the right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy, family, home, or correspondence, as well as against unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. This is, Madam Chair, in line with Article 17 of the ICCPR. If the Secretary didn’t catch the language, I may repeat it, Madam Chair, if you allow. Acknowledging the right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s privacy, family, home, or correspondence, as well as against unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Egypt. So you’ve just heard the Egyptian proposal. I’d like to know what you think of it in the room Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe we can withdraw our proposal. If not, then we can keep arbitrary interference. We can withdraw our proposal. Our only objection was that it was not illegal. So I can withdraw my proposal and we can retain arbitrary. If this is likely to cause a problem. So my only objection was that the term was not legal enough for a legal convention. So I am willing to withdraw my proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Yemen. Mauritania.
Mauritania:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We support the amendment proposed by Egypt. This proposal is comprehensive and will make this paragraph or convention more aligned with other UN human civil rights related instruments of the United Nations.
Chair:
Thank you, Armenia.
Armenia:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek a clarification. What Egypt said is the direct citation of article 17 of ICCPR. But are we still keeping also the importance of protecting personal data or we’re deleting that part according to that?
Chair:
I’ll give the floor back to Egypt.
Egypt:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the distinguished delegate of Armenia. We are flexible, Madam Chair. We try to bridge the gap between the divergent views on it and to be faithful to the ICCPR Article 17 and taking into consideration that we have Article 36 on the protection of personal data. Of course, we have no problem of having it here as well. I thank you.
Chair:
Thank you, Egypt. Therefore, the answer is that we will keep the importance of protecting personal data. Iran.
Iran:
Thank you, Madam Chair. With the proposal by the distinguished delegation of Egypt, we can go along with this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair:
Very good. Should the committee accept Egypt’s proposal? Good, perfect, agreed. Agreed on referendum, of course. Canada.
Canada:
Thanks, Madam Chair. I think we would need to see the proposal in order to further consider it. Thanks.
Chair:
Good. It’s not exactly refusal, so we’re making progress. The United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
I think your text is pretty good, so we would support this. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes, but if you prefer Egypt’s proposal, I wouldn’t be too upset. Microphone for Guyana.
Guyana:
Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of CARICOM, we would need time to review Egypt’s proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Brazil.
Brazil:
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would also like to support Egypt’s proposal. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Good. So, we’ll leave that paragraph open, but with the possibility of keeping Egypt’s proposal, the Secretary is going to take note of that proposal and publish it. Thank you. We’re on paragraph 13. Are there any objections to adopting this paragraph ad ref? Is it okay for everyone? Perfect. 13 is agreed at referendum. 14. No. It’s a technical paragraph. We recall the GA resolutions. Therefore, paragraph 14, is there any objection to that? No. I suppose there isn’t. Good. So it’s agreed at referendum. Paragraph 15. No objection. Perfect. Agreed at referendum. Oh, Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe:
Sorry Madam Chair. I thought maybe it would read better if the wording starts between member states of the United Nations instead of saying states members of the United Nations. Just a proposal Madam Chair. Thank you.
Chair:
Well, we’re going to listen to the United Kingdom.
United Kingdom:
Thank you Madam Chair. My comment is actually relating to PP14. You were slightly too fast for me to make an intervention. So if you allow, I would just like to say a few words on that. Or I can wait until you go back to it.
Chair:
No, no. Go ahead.
United Kingdom:
I would like to reserve on this. In our view, there’s no precedent for referring to resolutions which establish the drafting processes in UNCTAD. We also note it wasn’t a consensual resolution. So we don’t think it’s got any place in what should be a universal treaty. So we reserve on this text. Thank you.
Chair:
So we’ll remove agreed at referendum. Well, it’s just recalling resolutions that were adopted that really doesn’t change anything. And you were a stakeholder in it. And drawing up that resolution, you played a significant role, I remind you, especially for 282. So I don’t see why we would refuse this reminder. But it’s your right. We’ll leave that paragraph 14 open. 15, can we adopt it? The Russian Federation and Morocco. Russian Federation. Madam Chair, thank you. And I’m sorry, I got a bit distracted. I didn’t quite understand why we’re leaving paragraph 14 as it is. The European member state reserved its position on paragraph 14, just as you did on other paragraphs. It was the same thing. Morocco. Le Maroc.
Morocco:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on paragraph 15, if the Secretary could reflect that it’s member states of the UN. It’s not well reflected in the text. Thank you.
Chair:
So the Secretariat tells me that it’s the editors who are properly trained for that who have insisted that this appear as it stands, states members of the United Nations. So I agree with you that I don’t understand why it would be like that, but it must be something new at the UN. But if you’d like to change it, it’s your sovereign right. And then there’s the request from Zimbabwe. You didn’t give your opinion on that because Zimbabwe asks that we begin with the member states of the United Nations before talking about the other regional, international conventions. So the Secretary has got – does the committee agree with Zimbabwe? Okay, go ahead, we’ll retain similar treaties that exist between member states of the United Nations and then the others. So we’ll take into account Zimbabwe’s request that didn’t receive any objections. Ms. Morocco, do you have a specific proposal?
Morocco:
Madam Chair, I don’t have a specific proposal. My request was to adjust following what has been said or requested before. The formulation that we use in all, I would say, UN language that is well-adopted is member states of the UN. I took note of what you said, but again, I’m perplexed. This is an intergovernmental process led by member states, and the Secretariat here reflects what we say. So I don’t understand how bluntly it’s been dictated that the Secretariat said it’s states members. This is not a language that my delegation is familiar with. We’re very familiar with the establishment of member states of the UN. So again, whether you take it as an editorial or procedural request, but it should be reflected as such. If there is an appetite to prolong the discussion, then this A paragraph cannot be a draft for my delegation. Thank you.
Chair:
Yes, thank you very much. I agree with you, but apparently those are the editors in Vienna who insisted that we keep this expression. But you’re right. Does the committee agree with Morocco? We’ll go back to the usual drafting, even if we make editors in Vienna unhappy. Good? Okay. It’s adopted. Secretary, do you have to take a note of that? You have to take a note of the clarification? The committee agrees with Morocco. Yes, then we will make the changes and we’ll submit the text. But you take note of the changes that are being proposed here. Okay. Thank you. Good. So we’ve concluded the preamble. There’s still several paragraphs left, the reservations of several countries. So we’ll now move on to the title of the convention. Now, as you know, the title is part of the informal consultations. But we’re going to try to discuss, to see where we stand, that the current title associates the bridge title of the new version of the draft text of the convention, but the second title recently added, which specifies cybercrime. Now this proposal aims to reconcile the positions of the member states who would prefer the term United Nations Conventions Against Cybercrime and those who are in favor of the UN Convention on Cybercrime. on the fight against the use of information and communication technology for criminal purposes. Now, since some states believe that this letter proposal has a wider scope, the title was modified so that it would be consistent with the expression – information and communications technology system, which we find in Paragraph A of Article 2 of the updated text of the Convention. Now can the Special Committee tell us where we stand? Are we ready to accept the title as I submitted it, which once again synthesizes both positions? Or do you have something else to propose, and if you have something better, I’d be very happy to accept it. You have the floor. Personne ne veut prendre le risque? Taking the risk? No? Bon, allez. Very well, then. Je vais vous accepter mon titre. Do you accept my title, then? Is that okay? Je ne veux entendre que oui. I only want to hear yes. Yemen, you have the floor.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the title, the term cybercrime, these crimes have many names. Some call them information crimes or there may be other names. If we have all these titles, well, cyber crime and crimes committed with the use of information and communication technology systems, I think that means for me that since there are many different names and since we are not in agreement about the definition of cyber crime, I think that either of these names would be sufficient. We can talk about cybernetic crime or cyber crime. As for the other titles, crimes committed through the use of an ICT system, this would also be acceptable because every state has its own legislation. Certain states may have laws to combat infractions committed through the use of ICT systems, whereas other states might prefer to use the first term, cyber crime. The title would remain the same, but simply would be amending the content, so the title makes no difference here. Thank you.
Mali:
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think that we could keep the title and remove the parentheses, and we could… insert a conjunction between cybercrime and crimes. So we’d have UN Convention against cybercrime and crimes committed through the use of an information and communications technology system. I think that could help us reconcile the different positions and take into account the broad scope and the effectiveness that we want to see in this convention. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Mali Lebanon.
Lebanon:
Thank you, Chair. The reading of the title insinuates that cybercrime is defined as crimes committed through the ICTs. From a side, we do not see the value of defining a term in our title. And from the other side, we don’t agree with the definition because it will lead us into cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crimes. So we prefer to keep the title UN Convention against cybercrime. And thank you.
Chair:
Merci. Thank you. So we still are quite far from consensus. And so we will leave the title open. Negotiations continue. I’d like to know, at one point when we were examining Articles 7 and 8, I had asked a small group of countries that had made proposals to meet with each other. I’m talking about Article 7, paragraph 2, and Article 8, paragraph 2. There was the US, Yemen, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, and Vietnam. I would like to know if you have any updates for us, if you were able to achieve any results concerning these articles, Article 7, 2. and Article 8.2. Yes, United States, can you tell us what you’ve been up to?
United States:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As Madam Chair knows, the United States had offered these proposed minor edits as a technical edit for clarification, at least in English. We could not reach agreement on those edits and the United States will withdraw its proposals and return to the original language which is now, I think, acceptable to the U.S. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you very much, United States, for being so flexible. It really is very helpful. So, for the other countries, do you also agree to accept Article 7.2 and Article 8.2? Can we adopt them? Add referendum? Are there no further objections? Russian Federation?
Russian Federation:
Thank you, Madam Chair. In fact, I pressed the button when we were discussing the issue of the title of the Convention, so I’d like to comment on that. The position of the Russian Federation is well known. We’ve announced it several times. The title of the Convention must be in keeping with its mandate. Its mandate is very clear and unambiguous. It contains Resolution 74-47 and 75-82 adopted by consensus. So those must be the basic premises of our work. Therefore, the position of the Russian Federation is that we prefer for the title to be in line with its mandate. At the same time, we understand the efforts of the Chair to reconcile the two camps, one of which supports using the word cybercrime and the legislation, of course, contains the corresponding terminology. And then there are other countries, a number of countries where their legislation refers only to ICT, and which spoke in favor of the ad hoc committee implementing its mandate and to set up a convention that would be in accordance with its mandate. And so I’d like to once again state that we highly value the efforts of the Chair to arrive at consensus. And in this regard, I support the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Mali who had proposed removing the parentheses. That seems to be an excellent proposal, and I’d like to ask the ad hoc committee to support that proposal. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. For Article 7 and 8, we were not able to arrive at a definitive outcome, but we can withdraw our proposal in order to clarify the language. In penal law, we don’t find this kind of language, but we can still withdraw our proposal. So in order to demonstrate flexibility, however, we hope that others will reciprocate and that they will also show flexibility concerning other paragraphs and proposals, for example, with regard to national legislation, because there are texts that already exist in national legislation. And so we have shown flexibility, we have made concessions, and we hope that our colleagues will do the same. I would like to give you a simple example on Article 16 with regard to private images, intimate images. We have text and laws that consider this to be a crime. And these laws must be respected because they are contained in national legislation. We don’t have the right, and others do not have the right, to amend national laws because this often is enshrined in constitutions. This is a question of the sovereignty of states. We must respect state sovereignty. And this also entails respect for their laws. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you for that flexibility, says the Chair. I’d like to thank all of those delegations that showed flexibility. I’ll go back to Article 16.2, Article 8, sorry, Article 7.2 and 8.2. Can we adopt these at referendum? After the withdrawal of multiple proposals submitted by various states. Is that all right then, Secretariat? Agreed at referendum. Oh, I see the UAE.
United Arab Emirates:
Madam Chair, with regard to Article 7, Paragraph 2, the Member States cannot say that the offense was committed to obtain information. This would mean that if there was no violation, that this could not be considered a crime because the mere fact of obtaining personal information, in this case, if we are setting as a precondition that this act, or if we consider that this act is not considered to be a crime, then that would be in violation of many laws in certain legislation systems. This could be true and others not, but in any case, security measures to protect personal information are not very strict, and so setting as a prerequisite that there are security measures for this to be considered as a crime, that doesn’t seem very helpful. Linking criminalization to security measures, I think, is not helpful.
Chair:
Thank you, says the Chair. Do you have a proposal for an alternative? Any proposed language? Do you have a proposal? I’ll give the floor to the UAE.
United Arab Emirates:
The proposal would be to not link the commission of a crime to the violation of a security measure. In other words, the mere fact of obtaining personal information ought to be considered as a crime in and of itself, whether or not there was an infringement of security measures.
Chair:
If the proposal is not suitable to you, then I would ask you to provide a proposal, says the chair.
United Arab Emirates:
An alternative proposal.
Chair:
I would like you to read out your proposed language, says the chair.
United Arab Emirates:
The proposal is as follows. To delete may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, to delete that part of the sentence, because the crime would remain a crime in any case. That is to say that if that the crime was committed simply because this data was obtained or accessed.
Chair:
So you are asking for the entire paragraph to be deleted? That’s correct, Madam Chair. I’m asking for the deletion of that paragraph, then. Can you accept the proposal of the UAE to delete the entire paragraph, knowing that the paragraph is optional, a state party may require? May require. They’re not forced to. And that’s why I put in May, for those who are against that, so they can accept it. Because they wouldn’t do it. So we have the United States.
United States:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The United States took the floor first to agree with your view that paragraph 2 is permissive. The offense itself is contained in paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 permits options that Member States may consider, and in fact, that some Member States have implemented in their national legislation. No Member State is required to implement any of paragraph 2, which is entirely permissive. And for that reason, we don’t think it would be appropriate to delete paragraph 2. Thank you.
Chair:
Thank you. Thank you. So with those explanations from the United States, can the UAE accept that we keep this paragraph as it stands, because it’s not mandatory? Or will we give you some time to think about it? The UAE.
United Arab Emirates:
Madam Chair, I’d like to ask you to give us a bit more time to review the paragraph. Thank you very much.
Chair:
Good. So we’ll leave paragraph 2 of Article 7, we’ll leave it open until the UAE can tell us if they can accept it or not. Yemen.
Yemen:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank you once again. I have a clarification on that same paragraph. This paragraph concerns illegal access to data. I think that our colleague from the UAE has provided an explanation, a detailed one. If you’re talking about an abstract offense, in the event that there was access obtained to personal data and that there were, whether or not there were consequences to this access, if there is a criminal result, a crime that resulted from this access, then this would be an abstract crime. My second comment has to do with the result stemming from this access or from this offense that was committed.
Chair:
Thank you for that clarification, says the chair. And so I’d like to make a compromise. I now give the floor to the various stakeholders, while reminding them that they have three minutes. The microphone will be automatically cut off after three minutes. I would like to remind colleagues present today that we will resume tomorrow at 10 o’clock with the draft resolution. All right. So here is the list of speakers for the various stakeholders. Microsoft and Cybersecurity Tech Accord. Microsoft.
Microsoft:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak. As Microsoft has warned, without significant improvements, this treaty will have profound negative impacts on the digital ecosystem for years to come. Unfortunately, we remain concerned about the general direction of these negotiations. We support the many states who support the title UN Convention Against Cybercrime. Throughout the negotiation process, Microsoft has expressed concerns over proposals that widen the scope of criminalization under this treaty. The current title in brackets reflects one such attempt, conflating cybercrime with any crime committed using ICT systems. It is crucial for clarity and specificity that the title solely addresses cybercrime rather than encompassing wider concepts which might complicate the understanding of this treaty’s intent and scope. To conclude on a positive note, on the preamble, we support your draft text that ensures robust protection of human rights and gender equality. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much, Microsoft, Cybersecurity Tech Accord.
Cybersecurity Tech Accord:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take the floor again. I speak on behalf of the Cybersecurity Tech Accord as well as civil society organization NOMAD Institute, who is aligned with our statement, and as usual, we support statements made by Microsoft. Regrettably, our concern about the fundamental direction of these negotiations and the Convention continue to grow. Specifically on what has been discussed today, the Cybersecurity Tech Accord cannot support the proposed title of the Convention as it conflates cybercrime with crimes committed through the use of an information and communications technology system. Madam Chair, these are entirely different things, and the title should reflect objective reality. The current title would mean the two persons using a modern mobile device to exchange text messages while planning the commission of the robbery of a physical store were engaged in cybercrime, which is not the case. We agree with the large majority of states who have endorsed UN Convention against Cybercrime or UN Cybercrime Convention. With respect to the preamble, we believe that the text drafted by you, Madam Chair, secures a strong protection for human rights and gender equality. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair:
Thank you very much. Have a great evening and see you tomorrow at 10 a.m. Thank you very much.
Speakers
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
95 words per minute
Speech length
27 words
Speech time
17 secs
A
Albania
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
18 words
Speech time
9 secs
A
Angola
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
31 words
Speech time
13 secs
A
Armenia
Speech speed
169 words per minute
Speech length
48 words
Speech time
17 secs
A
Australia
Speech speed
195 words per minute
Speech length
36 words
Speech time
11 secs
B
Brazil
Speech speed
142 words per minute
Speech length
76 words
Speech time
32 secs
CV
Cabo Verde
Speech speed
97 words per minute
Speech length
27 words
Speech time
17 secs
C
Canada
Speech speed
122 words per minute
Speech length
140 words
Speech time
69 secs
C
Chair
Speech speed
107 words per minute
Speech length
2945 words
Speech time
1656 secs
C
Chile
Speech speed
145 words per minute
Speech length
165 words
Speech time
68 secs
C
Colombia
Speech speed
189 words per minute
Speech length
132 words
Speech time
42 secs
CR
Costa Rica
Speech speed
104 words per minute
Speech length
103 words
Speech time
59 secs
CT
Cybersecurity Tech Accord
Speech speed
201 words per minute
Speech length
214 words
Speech time
64 secs
E
Ecuador
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
64 words
Speech time
29 secs
E
Egypt
Speech speed
106 words per minute
Speech length
258 words
Speech time
146 secs
ES
El Salvador
Speech speed
119 words per minute
Speech length
65 words
Speech time
33 secs
EU
European Union
Speech speed
139 words per minute
Speech length
65 words
Speech time
28 secs
G
Georgia
Speech speed
162 words per minute
Speech length
35 words
Speech time
13 secs
G
Guatemala
Speech speed
158 words per minute
Speech length
60 words
Speech time
23 secs
G
Guyana
Speech speed
196 words per minute
Speech length
21 words
Speech time
6 secs
H
Honduras
Speech speed
165 words per minute
Speech length
68 words
Speech time
25 secs
I
Iceland
Speech speed
138 words per minute
Speech length
129 words
Speech time
56 secs
I
India
Speech speed
184 words per minute
Speech length
57 words
Speech time
19 secs
I
Iran
Speech speed
101 words per minute
Speech length
157 words
Speech time
93 secs
J
Japan
Speech speed
134 words per minute
Speech length
29 words
Speech time
13 secs
K
Kenya
Speech speed
144 words per minute
Speech length
49 words
Speech time
20 secs
L
Lebanon
Speech speed
186 words per minute
Speech length
82 words
Speech time
26 secs
L
Libya
Speech speed
56 words per minute
Speech length
12 words
Speech time
13 secs
L
Liechtenstein
Speech speed
153 words per minute
Speech length
109 words
Speech time
43 secs
M
Mali
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
110 words
Speech time
59 secs
M
Mauritania
Speech speed
100 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
24 secs
M
Microsoft
Speech speed
127 words per minute
Speech length
164 words
Speech time
78 secs
M
Morocco
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
199 words
Speech time
93 secs
N
Namibia
Speech speed
175 words per minute
Speech length
69 words
Speech time
24 secs
N
Nepal
Speech speed
166 words per minute
Speech length
63 words
Speech time
23 secs
NZ
New Zealand
Speech speed
164 words per minute
Speech length
103 words
Speech time
38 secs
N
Niger
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
15 words
Speech time
6 secs
N
Nigeria
Speech speed
115 words per minute
Speech length
230 words
Speech time
120 secs
N
Norway
Speech speed
169 words per minute
Speech length
33 words
Speech time
12 secs
O
Oman
Speech speed
135 words per minute
Speech length
18 words
Speech time
8 secs
P
Panama
Speech speed
120 words per minute
Speech length
34 words
Speech time
17 secs
P
Paraguay
Speech speed
121 words per minute
Speech length
228 words
Speech time
113 secs
P
Peru
Speech speed
85 words per minute
Speech length
18 words
Speech time
13 secs
Q
Qatar
Speech speed
152 words per minute
Speech length
20 words
Speech time
8 secs
RO
Republic of Moldova
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
72 words
Speech time
34 secs
RF
Russian Federation
Speech speed
129 words per minute
Speech length
675 words
Speech time
315 secs
SL
Sierra Leone
Speech speed
113 words per minute
Speech length
40 words
Speech time
21 secs
SA
South Africa
Speech speed
128 words per minute
Speech length
17 words
Speech time
8 secs
S
Sudan
Speech speed
150 words per minute
Speech length
56 words
Speech time
22 secs
S
Sweden
Speech speed
157 words per minute
Speech length
243 words
Speech time
93 secs
T
Tanzania
Speech speed
112 words per minute
Speech length
70 words
Speech time
37 secs
UA
United Arab Emirates
Speech speed
96 words per minute
Speech length
312 words
Speech time
195 secs
UK
United Kingdom
Speech speed
185 words per minute
Speech length
209 words
Speech time
68 secs
US
United States
Speech speed
159 words per minute
Speech length
480 words
Speech time
181 secs
U
Uruguay
Speech speed
146 words per minute
Speech length
73 words
Speech time
30 secs
VC
Vice Chair
Speech speed
137 words per minute
Speech length
1713 words
Speech time
749 secs
Y
Yemen
Speech speed
102 words per minute
Speech length
755 words
Speech time
444 secs
Z
Zimbabwe
Speech speed
151 words per minute
Speech length
155 words
Speech time
61 secs
Related event
